Website User Friedliness Q1 Generic Portal Report

70 %
30 %
Information about Website User Friedliness Q1 Generic Portal Report
Business & Mgmt

Published on February 24, 2009

Author: JuxtConsult

Source: slideshare.net

Description

The Website User Friendliness Generic Portal Report studies, interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites across six generic portals

Website User Friendliness Study

Generic Portal Website User Friendliness Study Generic Portal Report Jan-Mar ‘08

Website User Friendliness Study © copyright JuxtConsult

Generic Portal

Website User Friendliness Study Table of content Introduction .............................................................. 1 Methodology.............................................................. 2 Category Websites Tested.............................................. 8 Findings: Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall ............ 10 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall....... 11 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall .............. 13 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall.......... 14 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 15 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 26 Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Users Only ............................................................................ 27 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Users Only....................................................................... 28 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Users Only 30 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Users Only....................................................................... 31 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 32 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 43 Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Website Non Users Only....................................................................... 44 Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Website Non Users Only ............................................................... 45 Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Website Non Users Only....................................................................... 47 Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Website Non Users Only ............................................................... 48 Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes ......................... 49 Relative Importance of the Individual Criteria ..................... 60 Demographic Profile ................................................... 62 Socio Economic Profile................................................. 66 Economic Profile........................................................ 68 Net Usage Dynamics.................................................... 70 WUF Index Ranking of Websites by User Segments ................ 71 Sample Sizes............................................................. 78

Generic Portal

Website User Friendliness Study Introduction Internet users rarely bother to complain about the poor quality or experience of a website. They just ‘switch’ to an alternative website. Yet most websites do little to track their user’s experience and perceptions about their websites on various critical parameters - be it the appeal of their user interface, ease of navigation and task completion, or the satisfaction derived from the actual usage experience. To precisely fill this gap JuxtConsult has introduced its ‘Website User Friendliness’ syndicated study. The study helps the online players measure, quantify and benchmark the ‘user friendliness’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ of their website vis-à-vis the key competing websites. The study is unique in its methodology as it takes the concept of ‘usability testing’ of a website online – it makes the users use a website and give the feedback on its usage experience in ‘live’ online environment. The user feedback is real time and based on actual usage of the website. In order to define and measure what really makes a website ‘user- friendly’, we looked at a simple and interesting parallel of what makes a person seem ‘friendly’. In human interaction, we identify someone as ‘friendly’ only when that person firstly ‘looks’ friendly to us and then ‘behaves’ friendly towards us. When it comes to our interaction with websites, our expectations and behaviors are no different. We identify or treat a website as ‘friendly’ only when it both looks pleasant and acceptable to us and is easy and convenient to use. That is, A User friendly website Looks friendly + Behaves friendly To ‘look’ friendly, a website must be identifiable, appealing, relevant, and pleasant in its appearance. On the other hand, to ‘behave’ friendly a website must enable the task a user has come to perform on the website in a convenient, smooth, orderly and satisfactory manner. Accordingly, this study interprets, evaluates, measures and reports the ‘user-friendliness’ of a website taking into account both in its look factors as well as its usability factors. 1

Generic Portal Methodology The JuxtConsult ‘Website User Friendliness’ model Any comprehensive measure of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website must cover all key aspects that determine its ‘user-interface’ (looking friendly) as well as its ‘usage experience’ (behaving friendly). At a broad level, we at JuxtConsult defined these key aspects as follows: User Interface (look friendly) Usage Experience (behave friendly) Visually appealing Easy to access Distinctly identifiable Easy to locate relevant information Organized interface Easy to comprehend information Relevant content Easy to navigate and conduct a task Better quality of content Offer relevant and adequate solutions Facilitate satisfactory completion of task Consistent in performance Highly interactive and responsive In order to identify the precise and measurable attributes under each of these aspects, we carefully mapped the typical flow of the ‘interaction’ a user usually has with a website. In doing so we identified 6 typical stages of interaction a user has with a website (and therefore, 6 critical aspects that need to be measured to arrive at any comprehensive evaluation of ‘user-friendliness’ of a website): The user accesses the website (Accessibility) Finds the website appealing (Likeability) Finds the content relevant (Relatability) Is able to smoothly navigate on the website (Navigability) Finds the website responsive when needs assistance/help (Interactivity) Is able to complete the task/purpose for which he/she visited the website in the first place (Task accomplishment) Digging a little deeper in these 6 critical areas we identified 19 individual parameters that required to be measured to make the model a fairly comprehensive one. The parameters related to ‘e-commerce’ and ‘transactions’ were not included in the ‘generic model’ per se (to retain its universality), but have been considered separately as the 2

Website User Friendliness Study ‘seventh’ critical aspect of measuring user friendliness of the ‘e- commerce’ websites. The following graphics outline the precise ‘website user friendliness’ measuring and rating schema used in the JuxtConsult model and in bringing out these reports: © The Model The Website – User The Measures The User Friendliness Criteria Interaction Points Browser compatibility Accessibility Download time Is the website easy to access? Technical Distinctiveness (branding) Layout and interface Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) Likeability Does it look appealing? Identification with the website Design Ease of comprehension Relevance/Adequacy of content Relatability Is the content relevant and distinct? Content distinctiveness (quality) Content Ease of locating task info Ease of conducting the tasks Navigability Is it easy to use? Inter-page consistency in design Task Flow and flow Navigational cues and helps Error rate / error recovery Interactivity Is it able to assist the user when needed? Contacability (and responsiveness) Assistance Sense of security in using the site Level of task completion (success) Task Accomplishment Timeliness of task completion Is the user able to accomplish the task? Solution Adequacy of task compl. (satisfaction) 3

Generic Portal © User Friendliness Measuring Schema 3. Distinctive in identity (branding) 4. Presentation of content (layout) 10. Ease of locating task info 5. Aesthetics (color, text, graphics) 11. Ease of conducting the task 6. User identification with the site 12. Navigation flow between pages 16. Timeliness of task completion 7. Ease of comprehension 13. Navigational cues and helps 17. Quality of usage experience 1. Browser Compatibility 8. Relevance of content 14. Error recovery 18. Perceived sense of security in usage 2. Download Time 9. Relative quality of content 15. Customer responsiveness 19. Brand preference creation Site is likeable and relevant Site is easily accessible Site is easy to use with hassle-free navigation Site delivers task accomplishment Design Appeal Ease of Access Ease of Usage Usage Satisfaction Appeal Index Accessibility Index Navigability Index Satisfaction Index User Friendly Experience User Friendly Interface User Friendly Interface Index (UFEX) User Friendly Experience Index (UZEX) Website User Friendliness Category Level Website User Friendliness Index (WUF) 4

Website User Friendliness Study As shown in the schema, the 19 individual parameters that determine the overall user friendliness of a website have been clustered together into 4 ‘sub index’ measuring the ‘accessibility’, ‘appeal’, ‘navigability’ and ‘usage satisfaction’ index of a website. Hereafter these are combined to arrive at two higher level ‘user interface’ and ‘user experience’ Index and eventually into the overall ‘website user friendliness’ (WUF) index of a website. The model thereby allows various websites in a category/vertical to be evaluated, compared, benchmarked and ranked on various aspects of their ‘user-friendliness’ in an objective manner (based on the index score derived from actual ‘ratings’ of these websites by their existing and potential users). The online survey To test and get the websites rated on these 19 parameters and some other identified aspects of ‘user friendliness’ by their existing and potential users, an online survey methodology based on ‘live’ usage and rating of websites was used. The online survey was conducted using JuxtConsult’s own online user panel (www.getcounted.net) as well as using a ‘survey ad campaign’ on Google Ad Sense (contextual search ads). The online survey was conducted using an e-questionnaire segmented into three sections. The first section had a ‘screener questionnaire’ that was used to identify the ‘users’ of an online category, and of the various websites being tested within that category. Then the identified ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ (taken as potential users) of the various websites were taken to the respective websites for ‘live’ usage. This was done by providing the ‘URL links’ of these websites within the questionnaires. Half the respondents (of both existing and potential users of the website) were asked to surf the ‘homepage’ and the other half to ‘complete a simple assigned task’ on the website1. This split was done to keep the length of the ‘live’ usage sessions within reasonable time limit, so that including the feedback-giving time (questionnaire filling), the whole session does not become too long for the respondent. In this way we tried to minimize the impact of any possible ‘response fatigue’ in the survey to the extent it is possible to do so in such surveys. To ensure a statistically healthy representation and calculation of the ratings (and indices) for each website in the study, a minimum sample quota of 120 ‘reported response’ per website was fixed. This is the sample size on which the user friendliness index calculations are based. 1 The tasks that the respondents of the Generic Portal category were asked to perform were – 1) check your horoscope for today, 2) check the day’s news of your interes, 3) check sprots content of your interest. 5

Generic Portal However, because of a break up of ‘live’ usage between the ‘only homepage surfing’ and ‘only an assigned task completion’, each respondent were to give only ‘part’ rating of the website. This meant that in practice it would take 2 respondents (one of homepage and one of task) to compete one rating of a website as per the JuxtConsult Model. Accordingly, in sample collection, the quota per website was doubled to 240 respondents per website. The eventual break up of the samples as ‘set’ per website and between its existing users and non- users (potential users) was as follows: Table 1: Sample size by websites Sample Base Users Non-users Total Rediff Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Yahoo Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Indiatimes Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Sify Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 AOL Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 MSN Home page 60 60 120 Task 60 60 120 Total Category 720 720 1,440 Further to ensure that we report only those responses that are based on actual, and to an extent, sincere ‘live’ usage of the website, firstly the time taken to check/use the website was measured (from the time of clicking the URL link on the questionnaire to the time of answering the first feedback question). Thereafter, we decided to exclude from reporting those respondents who took less than 3 minutes to ‘surf the homepage’ and less than 5 minutes to ‘complete the assigned task’ on the website. For the 19 individual parameters, except for browser compatibility, the ratings for the rest 18 parameters were taken directly from the respondents. For rating on browser compatibility, websites were tested internally at JuxtConsult by its own technical team on various popular internet browsers and then rated accordingly. The browsers on which the website opening was tested were – Internet Explorer, Firefox, Netscape and Opera. For the rest 18 parameters where users’ gave the ratings directly, all ratings were taken on a ‘5 point qualitative scale’. For each parameter, respondents were asked to choose one of the five statements given as ‘options’. The five statements ranged from the most positive statement about that attribute on that website to the most negative statement about that attribute on that website. Of these 18 parameters, only one parameter’s response was taken from the respondents ‘past usage’ of the website (therefore asked only to 6

Website User Friendliness Study the ‘users’). This parameter was customer responsiveness (measured as timeliness and appropriates of response to any query they may have made on the website in the past). On all the other 17 parameters the respondents were asked to give their ratings basis the ‘live’ usage experience and in real time. Eventually, Index numbers were calculated and derived from the individual parameter level rating, with each level index having its own calculated scale (depending on the number of individual parameters included under that index). The sample bases of various websites were equalized while calculating their website user friendliness index to ensure that there are no sample size biases in the reported findings. In the online questionnaires, a response format of ‘clicking’ a single or multiple options among the various given options was used for most questions. Wherever relevant, it was also possible for a respondent to answer ‘none’, ‘not applicable’ or ‘any other’. To enlist complete and sincere responses, an incentive of a significant cash prize was also announced to be given to one randomly selected respondent at the end of the survey. The questionnaire were pre-tested and timed to take approximately 15- 20 minutes for a respondent to complete depending on the speed of comprehension and answering of the questions. The questionnaire was structured and designed to reduce the level of ‘respondent fatigue’ to an extent that was practically possible. Over 1,421 unduplicated and clean responses were collected from the online survey for the 6 websites being tested under the Generic Portal category (in about 3 weeks of time for which the survey was ‘live’ online). After further cleaning of the data for the actual time spent on surfing the homepage/completing the task on the websites 1,325 responses were finally found to be valid and used in creating this report. The valid and usable data was then made representative of the entire online urban Indian population by using appropriate 'demographic multipliers’ using highly authentic Govt. of India population statistics. The weights used were derived from the JuxtConsult’s India Online 2007 study and are based on 3 highly relevant demographic parameters – SEC, town class and region. The end result is that the findings of this report possibly represent the ‘voice’ of over 24 million online urban Indians. Further, the findings represent and effectively cover internet users from all SEC groups, all age groups above 12 years, all income groups and all types of town classes (right down to 20,000 population size level towns)2 . 2 For more details on the demographic and socio-economic profile of the respondents see the ‘Respondent Profile’ section of this report. 7

Generic Portal Category Websites Tested Rediff (www.rediff.com) Yahoo (www.yahoo.com) Indiatimes (www.indiatimes.com) Sify (www.sify.com) AOL (www.aol.in) MSN (www.msn.com) 8

Website User Friendliness Study Findings 9

Generic Portal Website User Friendliness Aggregate Scores - Overall Table 2: Website user friendliness index (WUF) - overall Brands WUF Index Relative Index Rediff 7.0 100% Yahoo 6.9 98% Indiatimes 6.5 93% Sify 6.4 91% AOL 6.2 88% MSN 5.4 76% Base: 1,325 Table 3: Friendly interface index (UFEX) - overall Brands UFEX Index Relative Index Rediff 4.1 100% Yahoo 3.9 97% Indiatimes 3.7 91% Sify 3.7 90% AOL 3.6 88% MSN 3.1 75% Base: 1,325 Table 4: User friendly usage experience index (UZEX) - overall Brands UZEX Index Relative Index Rediff 3.0 100% Yahoo 2.9 99% Indiatimes 2.8 96% Sify 2.7 91% AOL 2.6 88% MSN 2.3 77% Base: 1,325 10

Website User Friendliness Study Website User Friendliness Sub Parameter Scores - Overall Table 5: Accessibility index (overall) Brands Accessibility Index Relative Index Rediff 2.2 100% Yahoo 2.1 96% Indiatimes 2.0 92% Sify 2.0 90% AOL 1.9 88% MSN 1.7 75% Base: 1,325 Table 6: Appeal index (overall) Brands Appeal Index Relative Index Rediff 1.9 100% Yahoo 1.8 97% Sify 1.7 91% AOL 1.7 89% Indiatimes 1.7 89% MSN 1.4 76% Base: 1,325 11

Generic Portal Table 7: Navigability index (overall) Brands Navigability Index Relative Index Yahoo 1.1 100% Rediff 1.0 93% Indiatimes 1.0 92% Sify 0.9 84% AOL 0.9 83% MSN 0.8 72% Base: 1,325 Table 8: Usage satisfaction index (overall) Brands Satisfaction Index Relative Index Rediff 1.9 100% Yahoo 1.8 95% Indiatimes 1.8 94% Sify 1.8 92% AOL 1.7 87% MSN 1.5 77% Base: 1,325 12

Website User Friendliness Study Website User Friendliness Perceptual Map – Overall .2 Design Appeal Yahoo .1 AOL Rediff Ease of Usage 0.0 Sify Ease of Access MSN -.1 Usage Satisfaction Attribute Indiatimes -.2 -.2 -.1 0.0 .1 .2 .3 Brand 13

Generic Portal Average Ratings on the Individual Parameters - Overall Table 9: Summary table - overall Ratings (on a 5 point qualitative scale) AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Browser Compatibility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Download Time 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.0 Accessibility Index 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.7 Distinctive in identity (branding) 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 Presentation layout of the home page 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 Presentation layout of the task page 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.4 Aesthetics of text on the homepage 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 Aesthetics of graphics on the homepage 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.2 User identification with the site 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.7 Ease of comprehension 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 Relevance of content 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.2 Relative quality of content 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.3 Appeal Index 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.4 Ease of locating task info 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.5 Ease of conducting the task 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1 Navigation flow between pages 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.4 Navigational cues and helps 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 Error recovery 4.3 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.4 Appropriateness of response to queries 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.7 Timeliness of response to queries 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 Satisfaction with query resolution 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.5 Navigability Index 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 Timeliness of task completion 4.3 4.0 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.9 Quality of the usage experience 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 Perceived sense of security during usage 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 Creation of brand preference 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4 Satisfaction Index 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.5 UFEX Index 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 4.1 3.1 UZEX Index 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.3 WUF Index 6.2 6.4 6.9 6.5 7.0 5.4 Base: 1,325 14

Website User Friendliness Study Rating Dispersions by Individual Attributes Chart 1: Download time (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 100% 1% 1% 4% 3% 3% 5% 9% Extremely slow 13% 10% 16% 15% 15% 18% 22% 75% Fairly slow 28% 24% 26% 28% 32% Neither fast nor 50% slow 64% Reasonably fast 58% 57% 54% 25% 49% 41% Adequately fast 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 Chart 2: Distinctive in identity (overall) JFM '08 Didn't notice the logo at all'. 100% 5% 7% 9% 10% 13% 15% 4% 7% 6% 7% 6% 8% I had to search for 14% 10% 9% 16% the logo 75% 11% 3% 21% 24% 26% 28% I spotted it but only 28% 31% after a while 50% 62% It was prominent 50% 25% 48% and I spotted it 44% 41% 39% easily It was the first thing 0% that I noticed on the page AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 15

Generic Portal Chart 3: Presentation of the home page (overall) JFM '08 0% Extremely haphazard 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 100% 2% 2% 1% 1% and badly presented 6% 3% 10% 18% 9% 17% 16% 25% Fairly disorganized and ill presented 75% 34% 44% 39% Just average in 44% 40% organization and presentation 45% 50% Fairly well organized and presented 53% 25% 43% 42% Extremely well 38% 37% organized and neatly 28% presented 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 Chart 4: Presentation of the task page (overall) JFM '08 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 3% Extremely untidy and 100% 0% 1% 0% 5% 1% 5% 1% 9% cluttered 1% 1 16% 17% 20% Fairly untidy 30% 75% 39% 26% 27% 37% Averagely presented 34% 50% Fairly well presented 62% 57% 55% 55% 25% 48% 42% Very well presented 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 16

Website User Friendliness Study Chart 5: Aesthetics of text (overall) JFM '08 It has too little 100% 7% 0% 2% 2% 5% 8% content and 22% 24% looks empty 31% 19% 33% 75% 38% It has too much text and looks 50% cluttered 76% 74% 73% 69% 62% 54% 25% It has just the right amount of text and looks 0% fine AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 Chart 6: Aesthetics of graphics (overall) JFM '08 100% Neither engage 6% 5% 8% 9% 9% 11% me nor distract 17% me 20% 14% 14% 21% 75% 33% Too many 50% 66% 63% 54% 55% 60% 50% 25% Highly relevant and engaging 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 17

Generic Portal Chart 7: User identification with the site (overall) JFM '08 3% 100% 4% 0% Its just opposite of my 6% 6% 7% style and personality 13% 10% 5% 5% 8% 12% 13% I find it difficult to 24% 24% 20% 75% 18% 25% relate to it I can live with it 38% 26% 29% 28% 50% 33% 39% I can relate to it to some extent 25% 39% 37% 36% 36% 33% 23% It matches my style and personality completely 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 Chart 8: Ease of comprehension (overall) JFM '08 2% 2% 3% 100% 4% 5% 2% Extremely difficult 2% 3% 4% 7% 1% 1 14% 14% 9% 16% 26% 21% 75% Quite difficult 21% 28% 42% 39% 21% 32% Neither easy nor 26% 50% difficult Reasonably easy 25% 47% 45% 42% 40% 38% 38% Extremely easy 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 18

Website User Friendliness Study Chart 9: Relevance of content (overall) JFM '08 Almost 0% 0% 2% 3% 100% 0% 6% 2% 0% 5% 4% irrelevant 1% 16% 15% 9% 22% 14% 17% Low 75% relevance 36% 33% 45% 50% 43% 45% Averagely 50% relevant 25% 50% Fairly 44% 38% 36% 34% relevant 30% 0% Highly relevant AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 Chart 10: Relative quality of content (overall) JFM '08 0% Significantly inferior 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 100% 1% than the other 2% 5% 2% 6% 5% websites 15% 16% 9% 16% 17% 25% Somewhat inferior than the other 75% websites 37% 33% 43% 37% Same as offered by 36% the other websites 37% 50% Somewhat better than the other websites 25% 48% 47% 42% 40% 40% 32% Significantly better than the other websites 0% AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 676 19

Generic Portal Chart 11: Ease of locating task info (overall) JFM '08 0% Extremely 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 100% 1% 1% 4% 1% 4% 6% difficult 13% 13% 12% 18% 24% 25% Fairly difficult 75% 24% 29% 17% 30% 23% 25% Neither easy 50% nor difficult 62% 61% 56% 53% Fairly easy 25% 48% 43% 0% Very easy AOL Sify Yahoo Indiatimes Rediff MSN Base: 651 Chart 12: Ease of conducting the task info (overall) JFM '08 0%

Add a comment

Comments

HenryCJ | 05/05/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
EnriqueTica | 11/05/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
Victorkn | 12/05/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
MichaelHict | 19/05/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
MichaelHict | 09/06/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
Gregorylor | 24/06/16
正宗肥仔茶餐廳 http://fatty-dimsum.com/
RichardOt | 27/06/16
攜心山靈 http://sixin-cafe.com/
FrancisfuT | 29/06/16
現金網 http://king168.net
Donaldsi | 07/07/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
RichardOt | 19/08/16
攜心山靈 http://sixin-cafe.com/
Donaldsi | 06/09/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
MichaelJip | 06/09/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
HenryCJ | 09/09/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/
FrancisfuT | 21/09/16
現金網 http://king168.net
Donaldsi | 18/10/16
一般考試,高考,普考,特考 盡在 http://xyz.net.tw/

Related presentations

Related pages

1st Quarter - APWG

Phishing Activity Trends Report ... organization’s website at http://www ... in order to steal the user’s credentials. Unlike most generic ...
Read more

Analytics – SAP Help Portal Page

SAP Help Portal: Analytics. ... Enable business users to discover and communicate meaningful patterns in data. ... interactive report ...
Read more

SAP Help Portal Features | SCN

SCN space for SAP Help Portal users (help.sap.com). Learn about new SAP Help Portal features and discuss and comment on them. This space is not for SAP ...
Read more

Global social networks ranked by number of users 2016

... blogging service Tumblr had more than 555 million active blog users on ... Comprehensive reports on ... With the Statista Premium Account you ...
Read more

Oracle WebCenter Portal - Downloads | Oracle Technology ...

The generic WebCenter Portal installer ... application for business users to build departmental portals and ... Oracle WebCenter Portal 11g R1 11 ...
Read more

Website Templates | Web Templates | Template Monster

... fit all websites and users of any level. Flash Intro ... Get new web templates report and design news. Subscribe. View Sample Newsletter Privacy Policy.
Read more

Reporting for HTML5, ASP.NET Ajax, MVC, WPF, Mobile, Touch ...

Provide seamless access to reports for your business users from any ... Web report viewers can now display reports stored on a Telerik Report Server in a ...
Read more

Oracle Portal 11 g - Portal 11g | Enterprise Portal ...

Oracle Portal 11g provides a rich, ... intuitive user interface ... Forrester Research Report: ...
Read more

FY15 Q1 - Press Releases - Investor Relations - Microsoft

Press releases relating to Microsoft Investor Relations for FY15 Q1 ... Reports; SEC Filings; Events. ... IMPORTANT NOTICE TO USERS ...
Read more